Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

An
Afghan migrant is stabbed in the heart on the streets of Athens. Black-shirted
paramilitaries linked to Hungary’s third-largest political party march through
a Roma neighbourhood shouting, “You will die here.” A neo-Nazi gang commits a
string of murders of Turkish immigrants in Germany. An ideologue driven by
hatred of “multiculturalism” kills 67 mostly young people on a Norwegian
Island.

It
may be comforting to see these incidents as isolated, disconnected or driven by
local events. But the truth is more discomforting: hatred and intolerance are moving
into the mainstream in Europe.

Intolerance
in Europe manifests itself in support for extremist parties and violence and
discrimination against minorities and migrants. Rather than tackling the
problem head on, Europe’s leaders often downplay the problem or blame the
victims. But concerted steps are needed to stop the violence and discrimination
and curtail the corrosive influence of racist parties, without limiting
freedoms of speech and association.

In many European countries, extremist parties— espousing
racist, anti-immigrant or anti minority policies—are part of the political
landscape. Their platforms vary, with some corresponding to traditional
far-right parties. But they frequently define themselves by strong opposition
to particular groups, including Muslims and immigrants (particularly among
parties in western Europe) and Roma (in eastern Europe).

The neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party entered the Greek
Parliament in June, securing 7 percent of the popular vote. In France, the National Front won
almost 18 percent of the vote in the April 2012 first-round presidential
elections. In the Netherlands, the Freedom Party caused the government to
collapse in April 2012, withdrawing its support from the ruling coalition (though
it lost ground at the polls in September). Until recently, extremist parties
were also part of government coalitions in Italy and Switzerland, and earlier
in Austria. Similar parties have made significant gains in Denmark, Sweden, and
Finland, and had electoral success in the 2009 European Parliament elections in
Hungary, the UK, and elsewhere.

A
2011 study by Chatham House indicates that support for such parties is a
long-term trend, in many cases pre-dating the economic downturn. A 2012 study
by the European Network Against Racism notes that while some European countries
have long had successful far-right parties, extremist parties have had
increasing success in the last decade in countries where they traditionally had
little support at the polls.

Intolerant political
rhetoric is not confined to extremist parties. Too often, mainstream European politicians
use intolerant or coded language about unpopular minorities. They justify such
speech on the ground that the failure to discuss issues like immigration
creates political space for extremist parties. But far
from neutralizing extremist parties, this kind of rhetoric from government
ministers and other mainstream politicians legitimizes their views, sending a
message to voters that xenophobic, anti-Muslim, or anti-Roma sentiment is
acceptable rather than a cause for shame.

Human
Rights Watch staff witnessed a Greek MP from a mainstream party describe migrants
as “cockroaches” during a Greek Parliamentary committee hearing in November on violence against migrants.

Silvio Berlusconi, then Italy’s prime minister, said in January
2010, that, “A reduction in [the number of] foreigners in Italy means fewer people
to swell the ranks of criminals.” In 2010, the French interior
minister at the time justified dismantling Roma settlements, asserting they
were sources of “illicit trafficking, children exploited
for begging, prostitution or delinquency,” while the Romanian
foreign minister made public statements suggesting that Roma are genetically
predisposed to criminality. The same year Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany used a major speech
to tell migrants in Germany: “We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don’t
accept them don’t have a place here” (although in 2012 she softened her tone,
saying that Muslims are part of Germany).

Just
as mainstream politicians sometimes echo the intolerant views commonly
associated with extremist parties, there is evidence to suggest that such views
are shared far more widely than those who vote for extremist parties. In
polling data from 2010 by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, half of those polled
across eight EU states -- including France, Germany and the UK - shared the
view that there are too many immigrants, and more than 40 percent concluded the
same about Muslims.

Anti-Semitism
and anti-Roma sentiment are also widespread. In Hungary, 68 percent of those polled in December 2012 said
they would not allow their child to be friends with a Roma child. The numbers
who would oppose a child’s friendship with African and Jewish children were
slightly lower (58 and 46 percent respectively) but still deeply alarming, not
least because it suggests anti-Roma, anti-migrant and anti-Semitic prejudice
are widespread. German, Swedish and UK authorities all recorded large numbers
of anti-Semitic incidents in 2010, the most recent data available.

What
is driving this intolerance? Academic research suggests that fears about loss
of culture, terrorism and crime and competition for economic resources all provide
part of the explanation. And while economic factors may not be the principal
driver, Europe’s economic and financial crisis and resulting austerity are
unlikely to help. The consequences
can be measured in broken bones and restricted opportunities.

In
Italy, Human Rights Watch has documented unchecked racist and xenophobic
attacks against African migrants, Roma and Italians of foreign descent,
including mob violence. Our research documented mob violence against Roma camps
in Naples and a three-day rampage against African seasonal migrant workers in
Calabria. An Italian man of
Burkina Faso origin was bludgeoned to death on the street in Milan in 2009 after
a petty theft from a café. In 2010, an Indian man was beaten in a town outside
Rome, doused with gasoline, and set on fire. At the end of 2011, a man opened
fire on African street vendors in Florence, killing two and wounding three
others.

In
Greece, Human Rights Watch research found that the failure of the authorities
to respond adequately to vigilante attacks on migrants is fraying the fabric of
society. Human Rights Watch
documented more than 50 serious attacks, including two on pregnant women. A
Somali asylum-seeker who acted as a translator for Human Rights Watch was
beaten by five men in Athens in June, breaking his hand. He was attacked again
in January, by six people who beat
and kicked him, injuring his nose and back.

According
to a recent EU Fundamental Rights Agency study, as many as one in four Roma (in
the Czech Republic, Greece and Poland), Somalis (in Finland and Denmark), and
Africans (in Malta and Ireland), said they had experienced hate-motivated
violence or serious harassment in the previous 12 months.

Yet
national authorities frequently refuse even to acknowledge that hate crimes are
a problem. When Human Rights Watch issued our report on xenophobic violence in
Italy, an Italian official insisted to us during a meeting that, “Italians are
not racist by nature.” Similarly, our report on hate crimes against migrants in
Greece met with the response that, “Greece has a history of hospitality.”

Governments
often point to the low number of hate crime recorded in their official
statistics. The OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights annual
reports on hate crimes show few hate crimes recorded by police or prosecuted in
the courts in many countries, including EU members. But what governments fail to mention is the frequent failure
to collect such data, the common misclassification of racist attacks as
ordinary crimes, and the reluctance of victims to come forward.

The
tendency to play down the problem is similar when it comes to far-right groups.
In a recent Europol survey of 30 European police forces, 29 forces said the
threat of far-right violence was low (Germany was the exception). Police in 5 EU states, including Greece, reported that there
were no active far-right groups in their country.

Hate
violence is only the tip of the iceberg, of course. For many minorities and
migrants, discrimination in housing, education and employment is a fact of
life.

Research
demonstrates that Muslims and Roma experience persistent hostility and
discrimination across the region. African and other migrants, as well as
European citizens of migrant descent, also face significant discrimination - including
by the police. This is reflected in the comprehensive data collected by the EU Fundamental
Rights Agency in 2009, in many judgments by the European Court of Human Rights
and EU Court of Justice, and in copious reports by non-governmental
organizations across Europe.

The
situation for Roma, Europe’s largest ethnic minority, is particularly alarming.
The EU recognizes that the persistent discrimination and marginalization
require intervention, and has developed a strategy and funding to that end. But
in practice Roma are frequent scapegoats - blamed for crime and social
problems.

Roma
migrants from eastern Europe face forced eviction and expulsion in France and Italy.
Further east, in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia,
the situation is even more alarming, with little progress toward ending forced
evictions and housing and school segregation (also a problem in Greece) despite
hundreds of millions of euros in EU funding and binding rulings by the European
Court of Human Rights.

These
violations of basic human rights betray the values that Europe seeks to
represent. They also cause an enormous waste of human potential, with millions of
people who have much to contribute to Europe’s prosperity denied access to the
education and employment that they need to fulfil their potential.

Reducing
intolerance and its symptoms is going to require a multi-faceted response at
the EU, national and local levels.

The
first thing leaders at all levels need to do is to acknowledge that Europe is
no longer so friendly and welcoming and that it is damaging both its image and
its social fabric by denying the problem. Tackling hate violence should be a top priority. Each government needs to
pass robust and effective laws that require recognizing hate crimes and
gathering data and evidence to prosecute them effectively. Then leaders and
lawmakers need to provide police officers, prosecutors and the courts with the
tools, training, and political support to bring people who commit hate crimes
to justice.

Officials
also need to make sure that undocumented migrants, who are often vulnerable to
such violence, can seek help from the authorities without fear of arrest and
deportation. Human Rights Watch research in Greece found that fear of arrest
was a key impediment to reporting attacks, and that some police officers had
threatened victims with deportation if they pursued their complaint.

European countries also
need to put in place general measures to combat
discrimination against minorities and migrants, including making sure that their
policies do not discriminate in law and practice. They need to enforce
anti-discrimination legislation through properly funded anti-discrimination
bodies and the courts, and to comply fully and speedily with discrimination-related
rulings of domestic and European courts. And though it is controversial in some
parts of Europe, governments need to collect statistics disaggregated by race,
ethnicity and religion to help understand the scale of the problem and allow
targeted policy responses.

It is vital to address hate
speech too. If Europe is serious
about curbing intolerance and draining support for extremist parties, political
leaders need to stop using intolerant and coded language, and forcefully
condemn others who express such views.

There
were inspiring ideas on combatting hate speech in Europe at a November 2012
conference in Budapest, including education, counter-speech, media
self-regulation and moderating online speech. The Council of Europe will begin
a major campaign in March aimed at
young people against online hate speech.

Hate speech
that actually incites violence should be combated though the criminal justice
system. But over-use of the criminal justice system carries
considerable risks for freedom of expression. Europe needs to set a positive
example for the rest of the world, not advocate models that are liable to
misuse, criminalizing language that offends the state or the powerful.

There is a
particular risk of overreaction when it comes to speech on the internet and social media. The UK provides a salient
example. There have been a series of prosecutions in the UK for offensive,
including racist, comments posted on the internet. In October, a 19-year old
man was sentenced to 12 weeks in a young offenders’ institution after posting
comments, some sexual, about two girls who are missing and presumed dead. The
same month a 20-year old man was sentenced to 240 hours of community service
for posting comments about dead soldiers on his Facebook page.

Jailing
people for speech often violates rights, especially in cases where there is no
evidence of incitement, and occupies police and judicial resources that would
be better directed toward those who commit or incite violence. It also sends
the wrong message to other countries’ leaders who may be looking to censor internet
speech, and contradicts the UK government’s position that it is a champion of
free expression on the internet.

The need to
protect religious freedom is also sometimes invoked in Europe to justify
restrictions on speech. Greece has
several ongoing criminal investigations under the country’s 1951 blasphemy law, including against a
theatre production in Athens that was disrupted by extremists who objected to
its portrayal of Jesus as gay. In Poland, the Supreme Court gave the green
light last October for to prosecute a heavy metal singer charged with insulting
religion after he tore up a Bible on stage.

It is
important to protect the rights of members of religious minorities in Europe,
including the freedom to manifest their religion in public and private. But blasphemy
laws protecting religions themselves, or criminalizing mere offense, violate
free expression. That is why the Rabat Plan of Action on the Prohibition of
Incitement (a UN led process to clarify the proper scope of prohibition of
incitement under international human rights law) calls for the repeal of such
laws. The Dutch government announced in November that it will repeal its
blasphemy law. Other European countries that still have blasphemy laws on the
books should follow suit.

Despite the negative influence of extremist political parties, particularly those whose members are linked to violence,
European governments should resist the temptation to ban them. The governments
of all 16 states in Germany have agreed to back a proposal to ban the National
Democratic Party (NPD). And the
Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)
recently suggested that Greece should consider banning the Golden Dawn party.
But this approach carries considerable risks, and raises questions about the
right to political participation and freedom of assembly.

Clearly,
if the leadership or other members of a political party are involved in
criminal conduct they should be prosecuted, including by withdrawing
parliamentary immunity where appropriate. There is also some scope to consider
sanctions or restrictions on political parties that
engage in unconstitutional speech or activities. And mainstream politicians
should unambiguously condemn expressions of hatred, hostility and division by
extremist parties.

But
banning extremist parties is unlikely to change the minds of their supporters.
Instead it drives the parties underground and risks denying those drawn to support
them an opportunity to participate in the political system. An effort to ban an
extremist party that fails may end up strengthening it -- a concern among those
in Germany who oppose the effort to ban the NPD. And while some extremist
parties in Europe are already linked to violence, exclusion from democratic
politics can increase the attractiveness of violence as a political tool, since
leaders can point to an alleged absence of peaceful alternatives.

Mainstream
parties should be working to draw away political support from these parties,
without aping their policies or embracing their rhetoric. A new study from
Counterpoint, a research institute, “Recapturing the Reluctant Radical,” offers
a series of suggestions. They include addressing the particular concerns of older
and women voters who are increasingly voting for extremist parties, responding
to local factors that drive support for extremist parties, investing in education and services to counter extremism, and being willing
to have difficult conversations
about immigration and integration in ways that promote tolerance. European Union institutions also
have a vital role to play. The EU has good laws for the most part, including
rules on prohibiting discrimination and combating racism and xenophobia through
the criminal justice system. But it needs to be willing to hold member states
to account if they don’t combat intolerance and its ugly symptoms. The monitoring
and reporting efforts of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency remain important. The
jurisprudence of the EU Court of Justice is also vital, notably on
anti-discrimination.

The European Commission,
European Parliament, and Council of the EU need to strengthen their words,
actions and monitoring to curb intolerance. The Commission is due to take stock
this year of whether member states have lived up to EU rules on combating
racism through the courts. That is a good opportunity to look more widely at
whether countries are doing enough to address hate crimes.

The Commission should
heed the recommendation of the European Parliament’s December annual report on
fundamental rights in the EU to use legal infringement proceedings and to
create an early warning and prevention mechanism for human rights abuses inside
its own borders. The Commission should also expand the scope of its planned
annual report on the justice systems of member states to encompass fundamental
rights.

The European
Parliament and Council both need to be willing to break the code of silence
that makes them reluctant to name individual member states engaged in abusive
practices. And the Council should make better use of its working party on
fundamental rights inside the EU (known as FREMP) to examine substantive human
rights concerns in member states, including racist and xenophobic violence.

Martin
Niemoller’s famous statement about Nazi Germany “First they came for the
communists, but I did not speak out because I was not a communist…” concludes
“then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.” While Europe
today is vastly different than it was in the 1930s, the statement reminds us why
standing up against intolerance is so important. Left unchecked, intolerance and hatred will corrode Europe’s
values and eat away at our societies. Responding, and doing so in ways that
uphold rights, is urgent.